Representation of the People Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible.

Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.

[Peter Swallow]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a representative from Meta spoke to the Committee just last week. I was very concerned about their answers when probed on the work that needs to be done to protect social media sites from foreign interference. Does he share my concerns that social media companies are not doing enough to tackle this issue on their platforms?

[Justin Madders]

In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.

There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.

[Emily Darlington]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.

[Justin Madders]

The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue.

The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month.

Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further.

This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future.

Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.

Electoral Resilience

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I welcome this review and the fact that it is independent. It is really important that this is seen to be above party politics, because we must protect our democracy; it is very clear that it is fragile and under attack from foreign forces. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the terms of reference. Will the review look at the role of social media companies? There is no doubt that foreign state actors are using that as a vehicle to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

It is an independent review, and the reviewer and his team will be able to look at whatever they think may be problematic relating to the core terms of reference. The central part of those terms of reference is to focus on potential malign foreign financial interference in UK politics. That may or may not have a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises.

Property Service Charges

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her excellent speech and on securing the debate. I state for the record that I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which does such good work in advising leaseholders.

It was eight years ago that I stood on the Opposition side of the Chamber and described the use of leasehold in new developments as the payment protection insurance of the house building industry. I am pleased to say that the previous Government eventually started to tackle that, and the current Government will hopefully complete that work soon so that we can finally condemn leasehold to the history books.

It was four years ago that I stood on the Opposition side of the Chamber and warned that estate management fees could replacement leasehold as the new PPI of the house building industry—or, as the indomitable women of the National Leasehold Campaign termed it, “fleecehold.” Now that has come to pass; it seems that just about every new development built in this country adopts the same exploitative model, and the public are rightly asking what we are going to do about it. The Minister has amassed great expertise in this area, and I know he is keen to crack on with reform.

There are a number of legal cases ongoing. I am pleased to see that the bogus argument about human rights has been dispatched by the High Court. However, there are a number of others where well-resourced freeholders are trying to preserve the status quo, and not every court is as wise as the High Court was in the human rights case. The Court of Appeal recently found in the Romney House case that where a tenant goes to the first-tier tribunal to challenge a service charge, the tribunal needs only to consider whether the process was reasonable, and not whether the charges themselves were reasonable. That is absurd, and has had the effect of requiring those leaseholders to pay for the refurbishment of a gym that they do not actually own. It is freeholders with their seemingly limitless resources that can challenge and delay actions by leaseholders to preserve their rotten system at every turn, so the sooner we implement the leasehold Act in full the better.

There is a clear warning here as to why we must crack on with tackling estate management fees more broadly. I look forward to the Government’s response to the consultation. When it comes to stopping any more estates being built in this way, and we must end this practice as a matter of urgency, I suggest, as the hon. Member did, that it will actually be much easier to do this than it has been for ending leasehold. I urge the Minister to send a clear instruction to local authorities that estate management arrangements will no longer be accepted in planning applications, and to legislate to ban them on any new developments if necessary. The longer we put off fixing that, the longer it will take to fix this mess.

I fear the Minister will be told that such a move would have an impact on the ambitious house building plans that we rightly have and would damage the housing market more generally, but were we not faced with the same arguments when we tried to abolish leasehold? After all, these developers do not have to pay a community sum to the local authority—indeed, they have an additional lucrative income stream—but despite those new income sources, it does not seem to have had any impact on the price they charge for people to buy their homes in the first place.

The reality is that an estate management company is nothing more than a calculation on a balance sheet. The developers have zero interest in keeping the verges neat and tidy after they have gone. If they can make the bottom line look more attractive by creating the management company, they will, and they keep getting away with it because we let them.

Of course, we must act to protect those already caught in this trap. It is also clear, as we have heard, that many people are not aware of the implications of an estate management company or how much it will cost them when they buy their home. Often, first-time buyers are excited by the prospect of owning a new home, and they place their trust in the system—the lenders, the developers, the lawyers—and the echoes of the leasehold scandal with this are loud. Glitzy sales staff paint a very different picture. They never set out the reality that, in addition to the significant commitment people are making when they buy a home, they are also agreeing to pay an unspecified sum to often unspecified recipients for as long as they stay in that home.

The mis-selling and failure to properly advise has all the hallmarks of the leasehold scandal. We should not be surprised by that because the same actors are involved in that industry as are involved in these rip-offs. An example of some of the novel ways that this financial trap can be described by sales staff came to my attention when constituents on a recently built estate all had the common explanation given to them that this service charge was for a storm drain, but that it would be paid off in a few years so they did not need to worry about it. Well, they are still paying it 15 years later. They are not even sure if there is a storm drain and, even if there is, who is actually responsible for it, and yet the invoices and threatening letters still come.

We also recently met interested parties on another new development where we were trying to clarify who was responsible for maintaining what and who they were accountable to. Because the estate had been developed over several years by different developers, about 10 different organisations were represented at that meeting. It is little wonder that we struggle for transparency with so many people involved.

The fundamental question from the homeowner is: why are we paying twice for the maintenance of open spaces, once through a management fee and once through council tax? We should start from the basic principle that the local council should be doing all the work and that estate management companies are an unnecessary tax on homeowners. How long will it be before we see a concerted campaign for people to get reductions on their council tax on the basis that they are being taxed twice? In the wrong hands, that sort of campaign could pit communities against one another.

Let us not forget that buying a home is the biggest single purchase people will ever make. We need far greater accountability for what developers say and what they build. Housing is of course a critical part of our infrastructure and a fundamental part of a person’s life, but it has been shown time and again that we cannot rely on the market alone to deliver that in a responsible way. Let us get control over these companies, empower homeowners and legislate if necessary so that this rotten, avaricious model becomes history, just like leasehold eventually will.

Pride in Place

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am very happy to take it away, and to work with the Scotland Office to understand why the money has been blocked. We are really keen to move at pace. We want to get investment into our communities, and we want things to start happening, so if we can find ways to unblock the investment, we absolutely shall.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Minister to her place, and say what an encouraging start this is? All the funding that my community is receiving is very welcome, and it is such a contrast to the previous regime’s approach, where we had the crumbs off the table, and a politically motivated process in which communities had to bid against each other in a system that was essentially rigged. It was always about what the Government wanted to spend the money on, not what communities decided their priorities were. Since the announcement of pride in place, I have had so many constituents come forward with great ideas. What assurances can the Minister give me that their voice will really count?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the difference in approach—both in allocation and in the power that we are genuinely trying to give communities—between this Government and the last Government. We are very clear that communities are in the driving seat. The Conservative party pointed out that things were being made “complex”, but I do not think they are. We are creating a route that allows communities to be in the driving seat; we have designed the programme with that intent. We have community delivery units that will be working on the ground alongside Members of Parliament to make sure that communities are genuinely driving and shaping this, and that we can unlock the huge potential to change our places.